galiel

Let me make a provocative but nontheless sincere, well-researched and documented assertion (which is not mine alone nor originally, by the way):

The means to adequately feed, house, care for, educate, and secure the entire current population of the Earth, has existed on this planet for roughly twenty years. Since then, we have advanced to the point where we can provide all basic human needs for the projected peak population mass in the forseable future--we could provide that foundation today.

And I'm not talking about mere palliative redistribution. I am talking about sustainable self-sufficiency, globally, for everyone, everywhere. In terms of resources, technology, equipment, supplies, infrastructure, know-how, expertise, etc., etc. It is all already in existence.

The only thing that prevents it from happening (and it is, of course, a monumentall big "only thing"), is the political will to get it done.

Once you throw off the intellectual blinders of Malthusianism, and accept that the issues are not geophysical but socio-political, we can start to talk about making a difference.

I have many tangible, specific ideas about next steps, and I am but a self-educated neophyte. People with resources and know-how far beyond mine have dedicated decades of their lives to figure out the practical details. The problem is, all the rocket in the world won't get you to Mars without the proper fuel, and, on Earth, the rocket fuel is a critical mass of political will.

You can't build that overnight, and you can't build it by force. You can only lay the foundations, provide people with tools and the know-how to use them, and then hope for the best.

emotional

Leave me alone. I'm not winning this debate, so I have no desire to carry on. I have to leave the forums once again. Goodbye.

Pseudonymph

Oops...a typo on my part. I was saying CHANGE, PEOPLE...calling you all "people"...I did not presume to change people themselves.

Toto

galiel - I think that sentiments like yours were behind the American foreign policy initiatives during the cold war, where we sent Peace Corps volunteers to all those backwards third world countries, confident that a few technological improvements and basic literacy would start them on the road to liberal democracy.

But it didn't work. The hijackers who flew into the World Trade Towers were highly educated, modern, middle class. They got their financing from Saudis, who are richer than we are.

Here in American we have freedom of relgion. The result at times has been that the religious fundamentalists (Falwell, Robertson, and company) have used those freedoms and modern technology to build up financial empires, turn their wealth into political power, and begin the process of cutting back on freedom for the rest of us.

So what is your solution to that?

dangin

And this reaction is why you don't have any credibility here. Particularly since I told you in one of our "debates" that I was a moderator, and you called for my removal then. You don't even remember your own angry diatribes.

I, as moderator here, tried to tell you, in this thread, a little bit about what you are getting into with this one. Whether you agree with me or not, my experience here, and the fact that this is the first time we have interacted with me in my moderator capacity should have carried a little weight with you. Particularly since I addressed you in an entirely civil manner.

And I don't think I have been part of the problem anywhere. Our relationship is strained. But of the 8,000+ members here, you are about the only one I have such a relationship with. You on the other hand have pissed off loads of people.

I'm not going to be two faced with you. I will continue to think poorly of you. But in my capacity as moderator, I judge your posts and your behavior fairly and evenly. You have done nothing here, except insult me, which requires my attention. Continue and you will simply alienate even more people. I don't care.

dangin

Devnet, I think most of us agree with you in principal. A more secular world is clearly superior to the theistic one we are presented with. We all just feel this with different intensity levels and different "action" plans.

Autonemesis

Nor do I.

Simple: you cannot force people to change their minds. You must convince them to change their minds of their own accord, because you have successfully persuaded them to your position. This is not something that can be achieved overnight, or even in a single generation. I agree with galiel that force cannot accomplish this.

But propaganda can. Lots and lots of it. Saturate the Arab airwaves with secular programming, secular theater, secular news, secular advertising, secular values. Spend billions lofting television satellites over the Middle East and beaming secular programming and propaganda to them, instead of send B-52s with daisy cutters. Buy up lots of Nikes and cases of Coca-Cola and give it to them, using the black market if necessary, to get all kinds of Western gew-gaws into the Arab "street". The goal is to raise their standard of living while addiciting them to the consumer lifestyle that defines the West.

This generation may be beyond convincing, but the next one is not. Materialism and consumerism tamed Christianity. I believe it can tame Islam and Zionism as well.

Celsus

Galiel,

Let me state from the outset, that, in principle, I agree with you. Your deductive observations are correct - I do not accept Malthusianism for a moment. However, in practice, what you ask for is impossible given international relations between nation-states. Firstly, to achieve equitable distribution, you need to:

1) Overcome the capitalist method of allocation of resources
2) Overcome specific geographical and transactional obstacles, which our current technology is not yet able to do
3) Democratise the entire world (in order to pull influence on exectutive decision-making away from lobby groups and elites)
4) Overcome local conflicts and animosities

The optimist in me says it's possible, just not in our lifetimes. The pessimist in me says, look at the last 6000 years, the elites will always find some way to reserve their right to greater resources. Thus, in practice, devnet's original point about overpopulation, given contemporary and historical circumstances, is correct. However, as you can see from my posts, religion is a subsidiary issue. If you could change the world overnight, I'm sure we could all think of ways to make it so much better. Unfortunately, I have to deal with reality. Development is not a simple issue.

The technocratic approach was tried and failed in the 1960s. It's not so simple that Westerners can tell the rest of the world what is the best way to run it. It requires global participation, accountability and dialogue, and getting round to that is an enormous task. By the way, my degree is in Development Studies, and if there's anything I learnt, it is that the "big theories" don't work. I used to be an idealist with views extremely similar to yours by the way. That means I empathise entirely with you, and wish more people thought like you do. However, dealing with reality means we have to accept real constraints regardless of good intentions.

Joel

galiel

I am not a moderator, so my credibility is not an issue.

Way to dismiss reams of constructive thoughts which I have contributed to this thread (and many others, but you said "here") and make it seem like the only important thing is my response to you.

I have done nothing here. Have you even read any of my thoughts on this topic?

Can you point me to a thread, any thread, in any forum, anywhere on these boards, within, say, the past couple of months, where you, dangin, have made a similar intellectual contribution?

If you didn't have "moderator" next to your name, more of your posts would fit the classic definition of "troll" than any other.

Publicly expressing personal dislike for a user, in a forum you moderate. What a classy act for a moderator. Truly, you make the long bulletin board tradition of moderation proud.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Just Another Infidel

Kind Bud, I generally agree with your sentiments but I would add programming and propaganda extolling the virtues of a Democratic government and personal freedom to your list, encouraging popular revolt. Some of these Islamic brainwashed populations may initially choose to elect Islamic governments, but once they see how well their non-Islamic neighbors are doing they'll vote the religious rascals out of office and maybe start down the road to modernity.

JAI